ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June
    16,
    1983
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    R82—21
    PERMITS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND
    FOR HAULING OF SPECIAL WASTES
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    R82~22
    LANDFILL OPERATING CRITERIA
    ORDER OF
    THE BOARD
    (by D.
    Anderson):
    R82—21 was opened by the Board October
    5,
    1982,
    with the
    intent of
    formulating permit programs
    t.o replace those
    in existing
    Chapter
    7:
    Solid Waste and Chapter
    9:
    Special Waste Hauling
    Regulations, while R82—22 was
    to replace the Chapter
    7 operating
    standards
    .
    *
    No proposal has been filed in R82—22,
    and no hearings held.
    In R82—21,
    the Agency filed a proposal on December 30,
    1982.
    Subsequent to a merit hearing held April
    15, 1983 at which the
    Agency discussed amending the proposal,
    the Agency announced its
    intent to withdraw the proposal
    to allow it time for extensive
    revision.
    This intent was announced in a May
    5,
    1983 motion to
    postpone a merit hearing scheduled for May 13, 1982,
    which was
    denied by the Board because of difficulties attendant upon
    providing the public with notice of cancellation.
    At the May 13, 1983 hearing, the Agency presented a
    “Statement
    To Withdraw Proposal of Regulations~,**which was
    the subject of questions and discussions of hearing participants.
    ~On the same day, two predecessor dockets were closed:
    R80—20,
    initiated by an Agency proposal of October 31,
    1982 to
    amend Chapter
    7, and R81—31,
    initiated by a Board proposal of
    December
    23,
    1981 to amend Chapter
    9.
    These two dockets were
    closed in part because hearings in each revealed the necessity
    of coordination between Chapter
    7 and 9 modernizing amendments,
    and the difficulty of evolving a revised Agency proposal in
    R80-20 alone,
    let alone a combined Chapter
    7 and
    9 proposal.
    **Thjs was resubmitted to the Board May 20,
    1983 to insure
    that entry of the document into the record as “PC 4” would not
    prevent the Board from
    fully considering the facts presented in
    it.
    The Board has fully considered the facts
    as well
    as the
    assertions presented therein.
    52-431
    2
    The Agency has identified certain problems with immediate
    movement on this proposal.
    The first involves the problems of
    inter—relationship between permitting standards and operational
    standards.
    Since the filing of the R82—21 proposal,
    the Agenc~~r
    has been developing the anticipated R82—22 operating criteria
    proposal.
    In so doing, the Agency has determined that in focusing
    on certain concepts such
    as “closure” within the permitting con-
    text,
    rules were developed which may have overlooked and failed to
    include in their purview operational exigencies such as “partial
    closure”
    for economic or other business reasons
    (R.
    224—225).
    Expansion of
    focus
    from permitting to operations
    has
    also
    convinced the Agency that permitting regulations cannot be
    comprehensively and comprehensibly discussed prior to development
    of additional definitions of “special waste”
    (R.
    226)
    as well
    as certain design and operating criteria such as that
    for
    groundwater monitoring programs
    (R.
    229,
    230).
    The solution,
    it believes,
    is withdrawal
    of this proposal and submission of an
    amended and expanded proposal
    including special waste and other
    definitions and criteria for applicability,
    requirements and
    procedures
    for permits, and standards for operations of landfills
    of the various classes identified
    in the R82—21 proposal
    (R.
    226,
    239).
    The Agency notes
    that
    it has developed a Land Pollution
    Control
    Task Force including personnel
    from the professional
    staff of its various regional offices
    to concentrate
    on the
    development of technical
    criteria for the management of non—
    hazardous special wastes,
    as well as
    a Groundwater Advisory
    Committee to forumulate a state groundwater monitoring program.
    The Agency estimates that some 7,700 hours have been devoted
    to these tasks since January,
    1982
    (Notice,
    Ex,
    A),
    Even so,
    progress has been delayed by the death of the attorney who
    formulated the R8C~~20proposal, by the
    lOSS
    of
    25—30
    Lechnica.
    people and 3 attorneys due to budget cutbacks and by the need
    for continued focus by the remaining staff on development of
    RCRA and UIC programs
    in order
    to gain federal delegation of
    these programs
    (R.
    243—244).
    In response to questions,
    the Agency indicated
    that,
    even
    given these constraints,
    it would anticipate
    filing the defini-
    tion, permitting and landfill operating standards packages “before
    the end of this year”
    (R.
    240,
    242),
    and a separate package or
    packages dealing with standards
    for surface impoundments,
    tanks.,
    containers,
    and waste piles,
    etc.
    “certainly in 1984”
    (R.
    257—258).
    As the Agency has acknowledged
    (R.
    237), the Board feels
    an
    urgent need to promulgate regulations to revise existing Chapters
    7 and
    9, which continue to prove themselves
    to be
    sadly out—of—
    date, under—comprehensive,
    and under—specific.
    The Board
    certainly appreciates the problems of assignment of
    the same
    personnel
    to numerous,
    simultaneous,
    “priority one” tasks.
    However, the Board has been anxious that the stat&s
    continuing
    non—hazardous waste program not suffer due
    to the recent special
    emphasis on its hazardous one.
    52-432
    3
    While the Board could consider proceeding with the R82—21
    proposal even after the Agency’s withdrawal
    as its proponent,
    bo do
    so risks duplication of effort,
    and reinvention of various
    wheels which could frustrate the very progress the Board seeks
    to encourage.
    The R82-21 and R82—22 proceedings are therefore
    dismissed.
    (Of course, the scheduled July
    8,
    1983 hearing
    is
    thereby cancelled.)
    The Board anticipates and expects
    that the Agency’s
    expanded,
    comprehensive proposal of which the Agency has spoken
    will
    be
    filed on or before January
    1,
    1984;
    the Board will
    in any event
    open
    a docket for revision of Chapters
    7 and 9 at that time.
    The
    Board notes that the agency has,
    in the course of the development
    of these regulations,
    solicited public comment on various drafts
    (e.g.
    R.
    251—252) and discussed them with various state agencies,
    industry representatives, and associations
    (R.
    235) prior to the
    filing
    of proposals with the Board for their presentation at
    public hearing.
    While arguably there may be merit in such input
    at the early stage of regulatory development, the Board suggests
    that
    if the Agency should feel time pressures come this fall,
    that its own pre-filing comment procedures be truncated.
    Filing
    of
    a less—than-perfect proposal
    is preferable to
    no
    proposal,
    particularly given that public hearings will doubtless necessitate
    changes even in the “perfect” proposal.
    Finally,
    in order to ensure that Chapters
    7 and
    9 do not
    cease to exist as of the October
    1,
    1983 codification deadline,
    the Board will proceed with codification
    of these Chapters without
    change in existing dockets R81—7 and R81-9.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Christan
    L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Bo~rd,hereby certify that the above Order was adopted
    on the
    ____
    day of
    ~
    ,
    1983 by a vote of
    4-o
    a~
    r~
    Christan L.
    Mof
    et~k~,)Clerk
    Illinois Pollution ‘tontrol Board
    52-433

    Back to top